It's the revolution of the faith I've grown to love. I thank each person for their thoughtfulness and brilliance (is that spelled right?). I invite your ideas and critcism's, It's helping me to get a glimpse of the fullness of life. "What you do with truth is more important than what you think is truth'

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

I am currently reading Tom Harpur's new book 'Water into Wine' and I am not sure what to think of it all. Pieces of it are really good (interpretation pieces) and part's of it I think are very questionable (Paul's mythology). So here is what I will put out there after 3 chapters of reading.

(1) Jesus is mythical - it's an interesting idea - but I am not sure this is the case. I can see the virgin birth and a few other things being questioned as myth - but the actual person? He is similar to mythic characters - agreed - and maybe that adds to the stories - also agreed - but he does come off as a real person - and at that in a Jewish culture and community (which the writings also reflect - even if all we have is greek to go by). Maybe these scholars are missing something here in the historical study?

(2) The whole Mark, Matthew, Luke, and Q thing is tired and old. Mark is always first - and that's the current concensus (agreed) - but this is a field still wide open. The argument Mark came first and Matthew copied makes sense. But the opposite does also - Matthew came first and Mark was a shortened version of it - with 2% changes - for a different crowd. And Q - hell if we know that exists - there is no proof whatsoever (nor a document found). I think this is all questionable and if someone stakes a claim on any of this for some new-founded idea - it is at the very least - worth questioning.

(3) The whole Paul see's Jesus as myth is right from left field and makes no sense. I am not saying Paul doesn't allegorize a lot and some of his stuff can be mystic - agreed. But I think Paul saw Jesus as a real person that lived on one simple basis - Jesus crucified gets mentioned a lot in his writings (and is in each gospel). Now if crucifixion was something from 100's of years ago when Paul wrote - I might agree - however it was a known form of death during Paul's life. If Paul is going to wax mythic on everything - he has a very stange way of doing it.

(4) The problem of Acts and Luke weighs in here. Luke seems to have no problem writing a gospel and an 'acts of the apostles' that clearly lays out Jesus was a person and that Paul knew the original disciples. This actually has to lend creedence to the idea since Luke is a 2nd generation believer who also seems to know Paul (mentioned in his letters and even uses the communion idea Paul does verbatim in his gospel). Luke copied the gospels - clearly - but who do we think he got them from...well if he's honest in any sense - then possibly the first community of Christians. I think Luke is very strong evidence that a Jesus existed. Also if Luke wrote last and Paul mentions him in letters - doesn't it go to figure the other gospels possibly existed (even Paul mentions problems with 'gospels' - plural - in his letters).

(5) I like the idea of looking at the teachings from a more mythological perspective - not everything has to be literal - agreed. I like this - there seems to be something to learn here - and Harpur makes a great point about the 'mysteries of God' and 'parables' revealing deeper ideas about who God is. I can dig that.

(6) This whole mythology thing is based on the historical Jesus and builds from there (which I must say is quite the sturdy platform). I wonder - how much proof is there for a Peter, James, or John in 1st century AD? Or Paul? I mean, why stop at Jesus here - we have many names to peruse. If they all come up blank - then are they all made up also? Where did they come from then?

(7) Finally, my last qualm starts with Luke again. Isn't it odd that Luke has name attached to a gospel at all - and Acts? I can see Matthew and John - but Luke - who was not even a disciple at all? I thought the idea was attaching names of prominence to these things - even Thomas carries some weight - who the hell is Luke I ask? Yet he has 2 written documents - more than all of the actual disciples in terms of volumne of writing. Isn't that at all strange? And then we see Mark and Luke as travelling companions via Paul's letters - were they writers for people? Is Mark Peter's son - possibly that close to him - thus a gospel? Just maybe Luke was the author - and if that is so - then he wrote alongside Paul (or close to him). And if he copied - well - need I say more where this is going.

I am having as tough a time turning possible history into mythology - kinda like I would turning water into wine.

Sunday, October 28, 2007

“The most interesting separation was the one I hadn’t noticed before, way the text shows Abraham’s separation from God. In Chapter 22 God tells Abraham to take Isaac up the mountain and sacrifice him. This is the Abraham that argued against God destroying strangers, but for his own kid he gets up and goes.

This is the last time God speaks to him. The next time it is an angel of God who speaks to Abraham, and just to make sure we noticed it wasn’t God talking to Abraham directly anymore, the text says in verse 13 that the angel called to Abraham a second time. Are you getting it? God isn’t talking to this guy anymore! Why? Maybe because God had expected Abraham to argue and Abraham didn’t?” (Yaelbatsarah)

What can be learned here about our friendship with God? Do we do things with our faith that are unreasonable and need to be looked at more closely? No one’s faith is perfect – and we all make mistakes – but let’s pause this week to see if we are using our faith as a reason to make those mistakes.

Friday, October 26, 2007

“For two hundred years, we, in the west, have wagered the world that economic growth is the highest form of progress, burning more and more fossil fuels.” (David Suzuki)

I am not the biggest fan of Suzuki but I watched this documentary last night and got to wondering about the effects of climate change and where this all came from – and what is a Christian stand on this?

Well we are well aware this all grew out of Industrialization and the rise of oil as a basic economic underpinning. Although this 200 year history has spawned some of the greatest technological advances and conveniences – it has also caused major problems with our natural world. Suzuki points out problems in the “Canadian Arctic, Montana, Northern Kenya, China and India” - and how the erosion of soil, ecological disasters, and the melting of ice caps all effect various communities in major ways (ex: death, starvation, loss of soil to grow things, and moving of communities to adjust).

I watched in horror more or less at communities losing everything in sub-sahara Africa or Chinese villages having to move every few years due to soil erosion. It seemed like all the answers to the problems are being thought up but no one is taking them serious. Why?

Greed. A system that is 200 years old and building more infrastructure aorund the earth is not about to go ‘quietly into that good night’. There is still a lot of money to be made and many markets are yet to be tapped completely (ex: China). I see a struggle between global markets and the strain on the global environment arising and someone has to concede.

But as a Christian person this bothers me. The West is enjoying the benefits of industrialization – other countries are suffering for the amount of stuff we do to the environment to keep our convenient lifestyles. It makes me feel a little guilty for being born into this and then enjoying it. We have inherited a system that both benefits us yet destroys our lifesource – the earth. It almost seems the almighty Dollar is worth more than the Almighy’s objectives for us – to care for this earth. I know that we are called not to 'greed' but to 'care for the poor' - yet in the West I see the opposite happening. Will this switch before it’s too late?

“And don't blame meI was given this world I didn't make it” (2 Pac – Keep Your Head Up)

“There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.” (I John 4:18)

Ever dissect this scripture before? Ever take a good long hard look at what John is saying here? Well I did about 2 weeks back and I came to some conclusions.

(1) Fear and love should not co-exist in a relationship. Someone should not say they have to ‘fear someone’ to ‘love them’ or ‘love them due to fear’. John makes it abundantly clear ‘that one who fears is not perfected by love’ – they are not getting all they can from that relationship.

(2) Love and fear are opposites. Love does not lead you to fear nor does fear lead you to love. Perfect loves casts out fear or you could also say fear casts out love. These two ideas are not bed-mates nor do they like hanging out – one usually drives the other away.

(3) The idea we can be saved by ‘fear tactics’ will not result in the idea we ‘will know God’ – since God is love. If someone comes to God to escape hell (punishment) there is no guarantee that same person will correctly portray God (who is love – not fear) – since the fear is a misrepresentation of God’s character. Fear leads to superstition; love leads to freedom.

We talk about the ‘fear of God’ but I think this is a normal beginning – there is a huge element of unknown concerning God. But to remain in fear is like to remain a child who is scared of the dark – not knowing the dark won’t hurt you (you just can’t see). Love is the steps towards God and finding out what the depth of God is (what life is all about and what it all means). Fear does not have depth – it has punishment – and that’s all there is to know.

Can the idea of love replace the idea of fear in the Christian world as the core idea in salvation? Why do we as humans want to hold so tightly onto fear?

Monday, October 22, 2007

I was just watching a documentary on the Mormon history and they had a whole chapter on polygamy and what all happened there. That got me thinking about that topic - is it possible this idea will ever make it's way back into mainstream society?

To be honest, Joseph Smith percieved himself as a prophet who saw himself heralding in both the end times and a challenge for the church to change in America. He was the one that made this idea enter the dialogue of American history - and what did he base this on? You got it - his interpretation of some Tanakh writings and some supposed revelation from God. Was he wrong? Mainstream Mormonism thinks so - but the documentary said something that caught my ears (I will paraphrase) - 'even if Mormons don't believe this practice there has to be some burning thought in the back of their minds about it's legitimacy since it did come from Joseph Smith's own mouth?'.

Polygamy, the idea a man can have more than one wife (why I say man is because this is how it was always used and justified). This idea is not all that foreign actually, it happens all around us all the time. Men cheat on their wives with other women (sometimes multiple partners), the ideas of 'swinging' are in our midst, Hugh Hefner has 4 wives (one legally), we see people marry multiple partners during a lifetime (what Larry King have now - 5?), teenagers have mutiple sex partners before they leave high school, etc. Is this really that foreign an idea?

However, is it possible this will come back into mainstream society? It has been around apparently since the world began - and history is filled with stories of this practice (even to this day) - and it seems the sexual revolution of the late 60's may have an unseen impact yet - maybe this sexual revolution can usher in the idea of polygamy also?

What's so bad if someone does this and all parties agree to the unions? I mean, it's behind closed doors and whatever we can't see can't be that bad? Plus this idea is as old as humanity itself - doesn't that lend credibility to it? Also, it seems the bible - even if vague on it - does show many a person having concubines? So, hmmmm...will this make a comeback? If not, why?

***PS: I have one wife and I love her with all my heart. Would I support this idea - no.

Saturday, October 20, 2007

I see no changes wake up in the morning and I ask myself/is life worth living should I blast myself?/I'm tired of bein' poor & even worse I'm black/my stomach hurts so I'm lookin' for a purse to snatch/Cops give a damn about a negro/pull the trigger kill a n*gga he's a hero/Give the crack to the kids who the hell cares/one less hungry mouth on the welfare

First ship 'em dope & let 'em deal to brothers/give 'em guns step back watch 'em kill each other/It's time to fight back that's what Huey said/2 shots in the dark now Huey's dead/I got love for my brother but we can never go nowhere unless we share with each other/We gotta start makin' changes learn to see me as a brother instead of 2 distant strangers/and that's how it's supposed to be/how can the devil take a brother if he's close to me?/I'd love to go back to when we played as kids/but things changed, and that's the way it is

That's just the way it is/Things'll never be the same/That's just the way it is

I see no changes all I see is racist faces/misplaced hate makes disgrace to races/We under I wonder what it takes to make this one better place, let's erase the wasted/Take the evil out the people they'll be acting right'/cause both black and white is smokin' crack tonight/and only time we chill is when we kill each other/it takes skill to be real, time to heal each other/And although it seems heaven sent/We ain't ready, to see a black President/It ain't a secret don't conceal the fact the penitentiary's packed, and it's filled with blacks

But some things will never change/try to show another way but you stayin' in the dope game/Now tell me what's a mother to do/bein' real don't appeal to the brother in you/You gotta operate the easy way/"I made a G today"/But you made it in a sleazy way/sellin' crack to the kids/"I gotta get paid"/Well hey, well that's the way it is

"We gotta make a change...It's time for us as a people to start makin' some changes. Let's change the way we eat, let's change the way we live and let's change the way we treat each other. You see the old way wasn't working so it's on us to do what we gotta do, to survive"

And still I see no changes can't a brother get a little peace/It's war on the streets & the war in the Middle East/Instead of war on poverty they got a war on drugs/so the police can bother me/And I ain't never did a crime I ain't have to do/But now I'm back with the blacks givin' it back to you/Don't let 'em jack you up, back you up, crack you up and pimp slap you up/You gotta learn to hold ya own/they get jealous when they see u with your mobile phone.

But tell the cops they can't touch this/I don't trust this when they try to rush I bust this/That's the sound of my tool you say it ain't cool/my mama didn't raise no fool/And as long as I stay black I gotta stay strapped/and I never get to lay back'/Cause I always got to worry 'bout the pay backs/some buck that I roughed up way back/comin' back after all these years/rat-tat-tat-tat-tat/that's the way it is

**I personally love this song and to me it represents the gospel very clearly (and what a prophet actually does - speaks to a generation all the while identifying with the people he is speaking to). Call this my respect for one man's desire to change the way things are.

Friday, October 19, 2007

"Now when John, while imprisoned, heard of the works of Christ, he sent word by his disciples and said to Him, "Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?" Jesus answered and said to them, "Go and report to John what you hear and see: the BLIND RECEIVE SIGHT and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the POOR HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO THEM. And blessed is he who does not take offense at Me." (Matthew 11:2-6)

Just what was the focus of Jesus' mission while on this earth? Well Jesus does give an explanation in Matthew 11 and it is answering a question John the Baptist had (who must of been doubting Jesus on some level). I am shocked by what Jesus says to him - 'tell John what you HEAR and SEE'. Two levels there - what's being said and what he is doing...what is he doing?

(1) Blind recieve sight - action

(2) Lame Walk - action

(3) Lepers Cleansed - action

(4) Deaf Hear - action

(5) Dead are Raised - action

(6) Poor have the gospel preached to them: words

1/6th of the things listed there require mere words - and those words are directed to the 'poor' of all things (ex: like modern day ghetto's) - a segment of society that still remains forgotten. 5/6th's are about 'doing something' - getting involved - and seeing a process through.

Now we likely won't be healing any of those ailments but the pattern is set there by our rabbi - 'doing' something is 5 times as important as 'talking' about something. And nowhere in that do we see anyone being judged for their 'ailments' or 'position in society' (if you think about it - they all are 'poor' in some way). It seems to me Jesus saw the importance of helping where and when it was needed.

So how does this all relate? What can we do? Basically the church needs to evolve into this vision again - one of programs and help for those in need of it. I am not totally sure but here are some suggestions:

(1) Help those without a vision find one(2) Help those that struggle all alone find acceptance and someone to work alongside them(3) Help the outcast in society find a place to belong(4) Help those who don't understand something in life to find knowledge about it(5) Help those with no hope in life to find that hope in life - allow them a reason to live(6) Work in the poorer areas of society for social change (preach to the poor)

Basically get involved and it's really that easy. If it wasn't to good for the 'teacher' then it shouldn't be too good for the student.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

I thought about the problems Trent and I have had over the past day or so - and I realized that I was partly to blame for escalating the whole thing - and I want to be honest about it.

I am not sure I gave Trent any way out to 'save face' and I seemed to rub his critcisms in his face - and for that Trent - I am sorry - I didn't need to do that and I went too far in some of the things I said (usually with my sarcasm).

Secondly, I made a personal issue between Trent and I public - and for that I am also sorry Trent. We had an issue with one another and I decided to bring it to the public (and asked you to bring it public) - and for that I accept my responsibility - I was wrong and I have taken the post down.

Lastly, I don't want to incite people to 'choose a side' here and I think that is what I caused some of you to do - and for that I am sorry also Trent. To be perfectly honest, everyone was judging Trent on the basis of one convo - that isn't fair - and that was my fault (since it was on my blog and shouldn't have been).

In the end, I am laying down the 'arms' - and moving on - no actual reason for ill will.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

"Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature" (I Corinthians 14:20)

"When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things" (I Corinthians 13:11)

I have been thinking about the idea of growth in our faith - and I notice Paul uses the idea of growth from a child to an adult. That once we come to this faith we start as 'babies' and eventually mature into 'adults' in our understanding of what we are studying - I am guessing with all the same processes of real life - from child (being told what is true) to teenager (knowing all the answers) to young adult (questioning what you thought you knew) to adult (maturity that is a partnership with God?).

I am using Paul's idea metaphorically of course - but it does help with developing a picture of what our faith should look like. I love how Paul does question the idea of thinking maturely (likely in regards to ethics) but I think it has another aspect to it - going from one understanding to one of more depth. Just how mature are we?

My thought on this is simple: growth in this faith needs to result into a place where we take full responsibility for our understanding of this faith (and what it means to us) - and instead of 'letting go and letting God' - we take our end of that partnership - we grow into a place where 'God lets go of our hand - to see us walk'.

I am thinking about this in a logical growth pattern - as how a parent treats a child (even while they grow). It would be absurd for your own parents to keep parenting you as a young child while you are an adult - at some point you accept the role of 'decision maker'. This puts the responsibility for 'what you do with what you know' where it belongs - with you.

So do you think our faith is like this? Are we growing to a point where God allows us that much responsibility - as in a friendship with God? Can He trust us that much?

Saturday, October 13, 2007

From How (Not) to Speak of God concerning the Costa-Gavras film Amen (pp. 63-64):

The film explores the failure of the Catholic and Protestant Churches when confronted with the terror of the death camps during the Second World War. We are presented with two religious figures, a Protestant youth pastor and a Catholic priest...The response of the priest is of particular interest. At one point he wonders aloud to the Cardinal whether it would be possible for every Christian in Germany to convert to Judaism in order to stop the horror, for the Nazis couldn't possibly condemn such a huge number of powerful and socially integrated people at that stage of the war. The idea is, of course, utterly rejected. Then, in complete frustration, and with a crushing sense of obligation towards the persecuted, the priest takes his own advice. In tears he turns from that which he loves more than life itself--his own faith tradition--and becomes a Jew. By taking on the Jewish identity he suffers with the persecuted, voluntarily taking his place on the trains that run to Auschwitz.

For this priest, the singularity of the horror required an unprecedented action, one which cut at the heart of his tradition. It was his very tradition (or rather his interpretation of that tradition) that demanded that he should give up that tradition...The most powerful way for this priest to affirm his Christianity is to lay it down...And so this priest gives up his Christianity precisely in order to retain his Christianity.

I would like to thank Hineini for bringing this to my attention! What do you think - is there a nugget of truth here that we can learn from?

He wished to right the wrongs, He sang religious songsHe kept the private He, Under a lock and key

Heat keeps rising in an age of passion, Shakes a conscience to the coreStopgap, hand-slap, take a tongue-lashing, My pour soul can't take any more

On the fritz, on the fritz, There he sits, on the fritz

He kept his ego there, It was a sad affair, On the fritzThe inner circle knows, And so the story goes. On the fritz

Airborne rumours chip away the image, But you knew the stakes were highFirst they get you thinking you're a prophet, Now they've got you living a lie

So the crowds grew, and the praise did too, And a mailing list sent you moneySo they love Jerry Lewis in France, Does that make him funny?It's too late for apologies when trust has been betrayed, Now victims of your double life are naming names

He kept his ego there, It was a sad affair, On the fritzThe public's had enough, They've come to call your bluff, On the fritz

Small talk breeds where kingdom's come crashing, Rumour conquers where it willNo one hears you, go ahead and cash in, If you don't die to yourself, well...pride kills

Thursday, October 11, 2007

This is a crazy week for me in the blog world - wow - now 2 people want out of my life for good - on the basis of my stances on issues.

(1) Timothy (the prophet): "Jason, the Lord commands me to now turn away from youin person and in speech...yet not in spirit, for I am also commanded to pray for you. So I leave you, Jason, with this, because you have chosen your own way and refuse to listen to the Word of the Lord." This was over the fact I like to celebrate Halloween.

(2) Burning Bush: "I cannot allow myself to be associated with calling perverse sin acceptable in God's sight. This then is what you must do. You must remove the link to my blog from your blog. It is fine if you criticize me openly for making you do this (I will take all the blame for it), but you must remove the link to my blog." This was over the fact I accept gay people as 'they are'.

I have no hard feelings about it - but there is an aspect of religious bullying happening here. Both of these people do not want to be associated with my viewpoints - or the discussion of them in anymore depth - I can handle that. That being said, they are both leaving in such a manner that makes them think they are 'right' and I am 'wrong' - and I need to 'repent' of something.

Ever feel like you were being judged for something you 'didn't do'? Goes to show 'what you believe is truth' still might be more important 'than what you do with truth'.

"There is a story in today's local paper of a youth minister that has 14 charges of sexual molestation against 3 teenage girls. The incidents allegedly occurred at a church he previously attended, he changed churches and the new church, knowing of the allegations, allowed him to serve in youth ministry for another 2 or 3 years" (Ken)

"Would forgivenness involve reinstating the criminal back into ministry? I certainly believe so...The primary concern of the church should be forgiving him." (Burning Bush)

"If we want to be true to the gospels - that youth leader that did those things needs to face the law for the things he did (since he did what was not allowed by it - and he owes to it). We can forgive the person - but that doesn't mean said youth pastor gets a free ticket from 'repentance' or 'responsibility'" (SocietyVs)

"Chruch discipline in accord with the NT would demand that he be put out of the church until he repents. I think a major part of repentance is accepting the just consequences of our actions" (Pam)

Ken reittirates an actual story from Canada - Then some of us responded to what he wrote - but what do you think should be done according to the faith you follow? Is there a problem with what happened there - and whose forgiveness is more impoertant in the case of a sexual offense - God's or the victims? Inquiring minds want to know.

Friday, October 05, 2007

Okay people - time to address something - which I see floating in the comments and need some explaining - these Christian-isms - which border being 'cliches'.

“true spiritual rebirth” (Pam) – Okay, I think this does happen but what is it? What are the qualifications for labeling someone’s conversion a ‘true rebirth’?

"just as you are" (Heather) – Actually Heather, I am not sure this line is in the gospels or letters at all – it’s a ‘made up thing by some evangelizers’. Do you think God has to accept us as ‘we are’? If so, why?

“image of Christ” (Pam) – What does this mean? A reflection of Jesus (like looking in the water) – or we shape out lives into his image? If so, how does he look? Do his looks change from culture to culture, person to person?

“Jesus as Lord of your life” (Ken) – Alright – this is pure cliché. Explain what ‘Lord’ means and what it all encompasses. How does this look exactly? How will someone know Jesus is actually Lord of their life - since we cannot see Jesus?

“perfect” (Ken) – This idea has been tossed around – so what is perfection? We can talk about perfect – but lets try define it.

**Christianeze - do we all look into what we are saying and do we personally define it? I was in the quest for the Law - but now I see we need some defining to do - so we can get to the heart of the quest - translate for me?

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

"What I find contradictory in some Christian circles is the use of Torah as a reason for continuing their condemnation of homosexuality. Always I am told that Jesus did away with the law, it is effect no more, yet when it comes to homosexuality all of the sudden I hear that Torah calls it an abomination!" (Yaelbatsarah)

"Good point. I think we do see a lot of this double talk in the faith about the law being finished yet they refer to it like it's still enacted - making it tough for one to even know what that person believes. " (SocietyVs)

"Regarding the law not being in effect. Jesus came to fulfill the law - Matt 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them".The law points us to Jesus, the only person who upheld the law. We then believe in Him and we are saved (John 3)." (Jim Jordan)

"My belief is that the law was not abolished by Christs' sacrifice. Christ 'fulfilled' the law...By repenting and accepting Christ as Lord our sins are covered by His sacrifice. That does not make the law obsolete. Those who have yet to accept Christ as Lord are still under the law" (Brother Ken)

These are competing views from 4 different people - 3 within the Christian realm and 1 from the Judaic faith. So let me lay them out for you - so there is no confusion what is being said.

(1) Yael finds it interesting - and so do I - this contradictory stand within the Christian faith about the law being 'fulfilled' and yet the use of the Law is still enacted as a strong basis for judgement (that's a contradiction). Either 'it is finished' or 'it is not' - it cannot be both.

(2) Jim and Ken are coming from the camp that Jesus did 'fulfill' the law - and through his sacrifice we are 'saved' (and the law can be used to point us there). Not only that Ken tacks on the idea the law is still required by people not under this 'salvation' offered by Christ - so it is both 'ways'. Law is and isn't required.

I also have to raise the question 'are we still required to follow the law?'. Take a close look at Matthew 5:17 - Jesus does say 'fulfill' - but how do we interpret that? I can see 2 ways: (a) fulfill the prophets sayings as is used a lot in the gospels; (b) maybe simply to 'do' the law also - or to complete the sayings of the law (as the gospels also point out hypocrisy on the part of the religious groups of the day). Can this be a two-fold idea?

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

The heart of the matter - I am going to try and discuss an issue amongst Christendom that is quite the 'hot button' and not a deeply divided issue - the gay rights issue. This was brought to my attention on facebook from a friend of mine that is gay - and she asked me to support the cause of 'gay rights'. I don't have to do anything to be involved mind you - but just the very idea had me thinking for days about 'what I thought' on the issue.

I have a variety of thoughts but what matters is what I did - I decided to support the cause - mainly on the basis that all people in our countries deserve all the rights promised in our constitutions (no one is excluded).

I guess I approach the issue more on the idea that we are called to 'treat others how we want to be treated' - and I think just because someone is gay - doesn't make that person less human than me or not wanting the same things I want (namely acceptance and love). For me, that is where the issue begins and ends - with how I treat someone else and what that means to my integrity.

So I am interested - what do you think on this issue? Should Christian people be supporting the cause for gay rights? Is it contradictory?